Originally Posted by Yogurt

Seriously. I get so ****ing annoyed when people attribute science as the cause for everything. Science isn't a phenomenon, it's a term given to a particular form of study. A study that we carry out.

You're right, and moreover, there are different Sciences. There are phyiscal sciences (physics, chemistry, astrophysics which are all physics), biology, social sciences(economics), applied science (engineering), formal sciences(mathetmatics ) and the list goes on.

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

I agree. Unfortunately, that will be the lay approach to this.
However, amidst scientists who aren't arrogantly pushing their own beliefs and truly care about the science, this will be a beautiful time to be an intellectual.

Read about the debate on the Big bang theory. One side (against the theory) was lead by an atheist and the other side was lead by a christian.

The Big Bang theory seems to support a creationist Ex nihilo and that is one of the reasons why you had the divisions between Georges Lemaître+George Gamov's group vs Fred Hoyle's group.

It's not just that, there were also some pretty personal arguments between Schorindger and Heisenberg regarding the atom. However, evidence wins the day.

Originally Posted by EngStud

You're right, and moreover, there are different Sciences. There are phyiscal sciences (physics, chemistry, astrophysics which are all physics), biology, social sciences(economics), applied science (engineering), formal sciences(mathetmatics ) and the list goes on.

Oh dang, I didn't know that. We don't learn these things in Commerce. :( Thanks mate!

Originally Posted by EngStud

You're right, and moreover, there are different Sciences. There are phyiscal sciences (physics, chemistry, astrophysics which are all physics), biology, social sciences(economics), applied science (engineering), formal sciences(mathetmatics ) and the list goes on.



Read about the debate on the Big bang theory. One side (against the theory) was lead by an atheist and the other side was lead by a christian.

The Big Bang theory seems to support a creationist Ex nihilo and that is one of the reasons why you had the divisions between Georges Lemaître+George Gamov's group vs Fred Hoyle's group.

It's not just that, there were also some pretty personal arguments between Schorindger and Heisenberg regarding the atom. However, evidence wins the day.

Psychology is notorious for conflict, mostly because they (at least used to) say "my theory is the right one period you all suck." Freud and Jung are textbook. But I think any time you get into anything that might overlap into a belief system you get a problem - look at natural selection and Darwin (or what it used to be... most of the people debating aren't scientists).

Originally Posted by EngStud

Science doesn't do anything. We do it, (not me but other folks involved).

Personally, I'm skeptical. Physicists will now have the figure out questions like why ligh exhibits certain properties if its speed is not the cosmic limit. All of Quantum physics will have to be reviewed.

And a heads up to those that are going to think physicists are going to debate this calmy : They won't. Just like other major physics debate, the physics community will be split over this. Debating is good for scientific advencement, but in the physics community it gets pretty ugly.

I am keeping an open mind on this since the resources that someone like Einstein had back in the day does not compare at all to what we have today. With his resources, i very much doubt he could have found a particle that was 60 nanoseconds faster then light quite simply since he could not measure it.

I agree with the debating, just how some dont accept global warming (its effect are a different story) then there will always be debate, and some people are really passionate about one side that their minds will never change

Originally Posted by britb

Psychology is notorious for conflict, mostly because they (at least used to) say "my theory is the right one period you all suck." Freud and Jung are textbook. But I think any time you get into anything that might overlap into a belief system you get a problem - look at natural selection and Darwin (or what it used to be... most of the people debating aren't scientists).

It's not about debating over an issue and not being a scientists. Using your logic, the only people who should deal with Evolution are biologists and patheonlogists. But there is probability involved in Evolution, so do we leave out the Mathematicians as well ?

If person A makes an argument, his argument is not wrong or right because he is person A.
A scientist isn't right because he is a scientists and a religious person is not wrong becuase he/she is a religious person. It is the argument that must be looked at.

Now if person A hasn't lied to me and tells me that he has seen something at a certain point in time but he/she hasn't brought any evidence from his/hrt observation, I can believe that person because he/she sgained my trust through some actions.

If by belief system, you meant a set of beliefs which are mostly about supernatural things (outside the physical realm) thanI don't see how that can "overlap" with knowledge from the physical realm. If I believe in Angels, it doesn't make me think that light is not the cosmic speed limit because Angels are not part of the Universe as we know it (what happened after the expansion of the singularity).